guns: senate to vote on large magazine ban

Yes, I know this is WAY offtopic, but I know there are plenty of gun enthusiasts here and probably some who are vehemently opposed to guns as well. (I guess that's the long winded way of saying, "Off topic, but lots of people will care") Let's keep it civil, and not debate each other. There's one thing we can all agree to; if you care about this issue, you probably want to contact your senator right now

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/foghorn/democrats-tack-high-cap-magazine-ban-onto-cybersecurity-bill/ Democrats (specifically my former senator Chuck Shumer) have tacked on an amendment to an upcoming cybersecurity bill that would make it illegal to transfer high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds). So while your existing PMAGs would be fine you would not be able to purchase any new magazines.

I'm curious about the line you shared, "Naturally this is quite impossible to enforce...". Why exactly would that be for above-board sales? They wouldn't be available for sale at gun shows, shops, etc, right?

Wondering what the author might have meant. In any case, I guess this is a great time to call my senator, Mr. Moran, and let him know my thoughts.

Large magazine ban? Well if they just took out all of the ads the magazines would be a lot smaller...

Here we go again. I'd love to see what evidence they have that a 30 round magazine is killing people vs. a 15 rnd mag. Sure, you have more bullets, but seriously... One bullet is usually all it takes. Again, we're talking about CRIMINALS!!! Not law abiding citizens. Why are we being legislated against AGAIN. Sorry, this is very opinionated by me, but I feel rather strongly about this. Every time some crazy bastage goes on a shooting spree our rights as responsible gun owners come under fire. I'm just sick and friggin' tired of it.

Meh. Won't happen.

In reply to Conquest351:

Gun owners aren't under fire, just larger capacity magazines. What's your problem here actually and how many times do you plan on missing?

This was already done once. I see no reason to ban a 17 round magazine that was designed for the pistol (and a lot are). I see no reason to make aftermarket 32 round magazines, etc. But mention that on any gun websites and you will be crucified.

BTW, I love guns.

EDIT: I'm pretty much against anything Schumer is for.

The problem with these kinds of laws is that the type of person that is going into a movie theater to kill people isn't interested in any laws.

In reply to rotard:

Which is why the last guy to do this in the USA did it will all legal weapons, right?

I suppose I should order those 50 round drum clips now...

In reply to pres589:

From the wording, it sounds like it applies to private sales as well. Just straight up nobody is allowed to get their hands on any more high cap mags whether buying at a store, private sale, or trading for it. Which is impossible to enforce.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Conquest351: Gun owners aren't under fire, just larger capacity magazines. What's your problem here actually and how many times do you plan on missing?

I don't plan on missing many times. LOL I like going out and shooting. I have a 12 and 15 rnd mag for my .40 S&W and a 20 rnd mag for my .308 G3 rifle. Those mags came factory. They are, by this definition, high capacity mags. My problem is this... There is no reason for any of this to be even an issue, it's only an issue because someone decided to make it one and put a criminal spin on it. Now, because those who have NO respect for any type of law use a 30 rnd mag in an Uzi (which it comes with from the factory if memory serves) and sprays a bank full of 9mm rounds while robbing it, I come under fire for wanting to buy a 20 rnd mag for my .22 plinker because I like to shoot it fast and 10 rnds don't last long. I'm looked at as some sort of criminal and labeled as such for wanting something aftermarket and better.

Let me put it into a frame where we can all understand it...

The engine in my Crown Vic was a great factory engine. 4.6L SOHC V8. I swapped in a 5.4L SOHC V8 because I wanted to and it was cool. Now because I have a higher capacity engine in my car, does that mean I'm going to drive 100mph all day every day and wreck and kill people? No. I have the capacity to do that, sure, but I'm a responsible person.

Everyone here is part of the performance crowd. You all have installed aftermarket higher performance parts on a vehicle that was, by all accounts, just fine the way it was. You wanted to improve the performance. No problem. Why is it different with anything else? We are looked upon as criminals by people who don't understand the racing/performance/hotrod world. We're looked at as street racers, hell raisers, speeders, damn crazy kids. Most of us are responsible adults.

Why is firearm ownership and aftermarket support any different?

Sorry for the rant...

In reply to Grizz:

Agreed, private sales are going to be impossible to enforce, I only see this working at stores, shows etc.

In reply to Conquest351:

Why do people try to compare guns to other devices not designed to kill? They're kind of a special case I think...

Who's going to enforce this btw?

In reply to pres589:

Not really, considering cars kill a hell of a lot more people than guns do in this country. Cars are tools, guns are tools. I don't understand why people can't make that connection.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Conquest351: Why do people try to compare guns to other devices not designed to kill? They're kind of a special case I think...

I tried to relate it to something everyone can understand. I also believe auto accidents outnumber firearm related fatalities by a fair margin.

Look, I understand both sides of the argument. There will NEVER be a universally acceptable resolution to firearms or anything related to them because opinions and stances on both sides are extremely strong. I just happen to be rather strong on the "I love my guns and leave me alone" side. LOL

In reply to Grizz:

I thought the ATF existed to enforce these sorts of things.

pres589 wrote: In reply to rotard: Which is why the last guy to do this in the USA did it will all legal weapons, right?

You don't think he would have done it with illegal weapons if legal weapons weren't available? You're making yourself look silly and you're hurting any valid points you might make with statements such as this.

pres589 wrote: I'm curious about the line you shared, "Naturally this is quite impossible to enforce...". Why exactly would that be for above-board sales?

I probably should have copied more carefully so as to avoid inflammatory sentences, but I did not. I'm sorry if you were offended. I've gone back and removed that sentence from my quote.

I'm not going to defend their phrasing. I didn't write it. Just contact your senator with your opinion, and don't turn this into a nasty partisan debate.

If you REALLY want my personal opinion on what the author I quoted said, feel free to PM me. Like I said, I don't need this to be partisan.

Since we will hear all the same tired arguments repeated endlessly -

The four most meaningless arguments against gun control

In reply to rotard:

I thought it was pretty obvious that he used weapons that were easily available to him. Same with the "grenades" he made at home, easily available commercial ingredients.

Why would he go with a semi-auto when full auto would have been even more destructive?

I'm really sorry that I have annoyed you with my silliness. Feeling horrible about asking questions.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Grizz: I thought the ATF existed to enforce these sorts of things.

They do, but how are they going to know about Joe and George trading 30 rnd AR mags for a set of door panels for a 53 Ford pickup? It's almost impossible to enforce private transactions like that, they just don't have enough manpower.

In reply to Conquest351:

Let me repeat again that I think the private sales are going to be nigh-impossible for the ATF, local law enforcement, etc to enforce this were it to become a law.

pres589 wrote: In reply to rotard: Which is why the last guy to do this in the USA did it will all legal weapons, right?

Because someone uses a car to kill 30 people by running them over, none if you can buy cars now.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Conquest351: Let me repeat again that I think the private sales are going to be nigh-impossible for the ATF, local law enforcement, etc to enforce this were it to become a law.

Ah yes, I didn't read who you were replying to. Again with me not reading everything... You're right.